Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 12. Jun 2024, 17:50:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v4cjl7$1o4b4$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
...
It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
business of H.
>
LOL
>
>
There are no finite string transformations from the input
to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
is irrelevant.
>
>
Of course there is.
>
That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>
>
Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
though the cracks of vagueness.
>
Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
DDD terminates normally.
 WHy? I never claimed that to be true.
 The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter example exists, it might just not be discovered.
 
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
*This is still Truthmaker Maximalism*
The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker
for halt decider H.
When we compute the mapping from the input to H(D,D) this
must apply a set of finite string transformation rules
(specified by the semantics of the x86 language) to this input.
The appropriate finite string transformation rules are D
correctly simulated by H.
There is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior
of D(D). If there was such a mapping then the detailed steps
of D correctly simulated by H where D terminates normally
could be provided.
Thus I have proven H(D,D) is not allowed to report on the
behavior of the directly executed D(D) because H is required
to report on the mapping form its input and there is no mapping
that reaches the behavior of D(D).
_D()
[00000cfc](01) 55          push ebp
[00000cfd](02) 8bec        mov ebp,esp
[00000cff](03) 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d02](01) 50          push eax       ; push D
[00000d03](03) 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d06](01) 51          push ecx       ; push D
[00000d07](05) e800feffff  call 00000b0c  ; call H
[00000d0c](03) 83c408      add esp,+08
[00000d0f](02) 85c0        test eax,eax
[00000d11](02) 7404        jz 00000d17
[00000d13](02) 33c0        xor eax,eax
[00000d15](02) eb05        jmp 00000d1c
[00000d17](05) b801000000  mov eax,00000001
[00000d1c](01) 5d          pop ebp
[00000d1d](01) c3          ret
Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
27 Apr 25 o 

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal